rajanaccros

5 ms·

1.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
Capitalism is literally evil based on first principles [0]. The fact that you have swallowed the "capitalism is the only thing that is good in this world pill" is the result of 500 years of propaganda. > Sounds like a good thin
2.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
The study I linked on The Limits of Growth did not predict 15 years. They predicted between 2030 and 2040. The original authors of that study have reasserted just last year that they still believe it to be true. IPCC and the nature study I
3.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
I think we are talking past each other on what is meant by degrowth. Degrowth means not tying the success of nations and people to that of GDP YoY. It is not sustainable. What I mean by degrowth is removing the growth imperative from econom
4.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
Yes I use AC. And no, I live well outside my comfort level and well within the material consumption guidelines for being a person that is doing something about this the environmental issues on this planet. Your line of questioning is dising
5.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
You actually could not be more wrong. Degrowth is the only thing that is going to solve our issue. That does not meaning cutting off food to populations, that means not maximizing profit as the only imperative to living. Your solution is te
6.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
I really don't agree with this. And I am not against nuclear. I am for any action that will restructure our society that is more reciprocal with the environment. The world will not change for the better with 60+% of species extinction,
7.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
Yes. I did quit my job and am looking for climate careers actively through climatebase.org and climacareers.com (not associate with either but where I have been searching). I have transitioned to veganism, raise the AC of my house to a very
8.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
Reports released by IPCC and other organizations [0] indicate that we have 15 years to take drastic action on the environment. This tracks with the extremely accurate prediction from The Limits to Growth [1] published in 1972. If we do not
9.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
Certainly begs the question... are corporations and governments inextricable?
10.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
I guess it would depend on the reason for denial to a patient. If it is solely because it isn't regulatory approved yet then that doesn't seem sufficient. If the drug was provided for free from the pharma company it would be a f
11.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
> only reveals a lack of self-awareness, arrogance, and over-confidence Says one with the hubris to decide what is right for me.
12.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
A flippant dismissal deserves a flippant reply.
13.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
> Because capitalism is the only system This is what largely I am arguing against. I think the benefits of capitalism have been proven, but the negatives are largely brushed aside. I think this form of capitalism is dangerous (and I sh
14.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
> You can't give credit all the credit to capitalism. Communism destroyed what was the fourth-largest lake in the world, which was so big that it was called a "sea"[0]. The age-old adage that if it is not capitalism, it mu
15.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
How is it the driving force behind everything comfortable? If another system was in place are you saying that we would not have had progress towards human comfort? And it seems you are assuming that I wouldn't give up a comfortable lif
16.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
> I don’t think any CEO can be moral if your primary obligation is “shareholder value”. I am really glad I am starting to see a lot more posts here on HN with regard to this fact. Capitalism is literally destroying everything and has pro
17.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
The trend we are seeing across the tech industry and business in general is to know/consolidate/extract/exploit. Even users who pay now are still "the product". Who are the buyers? Intelligence agencies, both govern
18.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
I proposed a solution in another comment that had a "side vote" feature as the disaggreement/unpopular option (since we rand out of directions for arrows).
19.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
As far as I know moderators are not responsible for most of the spam that comes through. As you said it can be plentiful. I have been caught in spam (other) filters many times just for using tor browser (thanks HN!). We already have spam fi
20.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
I think the same logic can apply to your scenario. If it is off topic it gets downvoted by the community and disappears to hidden. The relevant data gets voted up to the top as again decided by the community. This would inevitably reward fi
21.
by rajanaccros 3y ago
The community should moderate itself. If a comment like the parent appears it should be downvoted by the community to hidden. The only reason for moderation is to remove things that are illegal. Therefore, all speech is acceptable provi
22.
by rajanaccros 5y ago
Ohh I see. Not a replacement for process based site level isolation. I just wasn't wrapping my head around that. Makes much more sense now. Thanks for the explanation.
23.
by rajanaccros 5y ago
How does this affect process isolation? If only some components can be sandboxed at this fine grained level, aren't we still subject to process isolation to sandbox everything else? It would seem like one still has to run fission.au